The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

a reply to: cooperton



I think that everything changes in time. Whether it is the changing of our biological identities or our minds. There could be a discovery tomorrow that proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is false. Or not. But either way, things always change.

a reply to: Gothmog

Actually , the Laws of Probability and Statistics state it would be a near impossibility

Do you have a reliable source for that statement? or perhaps you could demonstrate?

a reply to: cooperton

here is a very simple question for you. Are you saying genetics do not account for the physiological makeup of biological organisms? If not then what does?

a reply to: cooperton

Nice Gish Gallop there neighbour. You have been practicing those of late '

I do love that you can't actually demonstrate that anatomy disproves evolution, rather you just say it is so.

You focus on the eye (pun intentional), yet there is no proof that it is impossible to have evolved rather than was created. Indeed, there are multiple studies showing that the eye did indeed evolve.

You rely on tired old arguments which have been shown to be false.

So, this thread categorically states that evolution is impossible because the sum of its parts is impossible? Even when
parts are not only possible but proven?
Well then...

I honestly most people who ‘believe’ in evolution just does it to bash Christians who believe in creation.

Like evolutionbpurpose if fluid genders,
Or
Any other, what 23 sexual preferences with zero chance of reproduction

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Gothmog

Actually , the Laws of Probability and Statistics state it would be a near impossibility

Do you have a reliable source for that statement? or perhaps you could demonstrate?

Ignoring as already done.

a reply to: cooperton

I appreciate you taking the time to share your theory but I have to say it is highly illogical.

Your entire premise is that you want people to believe that each organ is an entire organism and not a part of the whole, correct? And therefore, each organ could not have evolved because it's different from other organs and unrelated.

Except it's all part of a whole organism and each change affects other organs. Each organ is connected and affected by others through various other systems, which you left out of the OP --nervous system, cardiovascular and so on.

I could list many, many examples of how organs are connected and evolve as a whole, or the dominance of one makes another obsolete -- sometimes leaving behind rudimentary organs or creating atavisms, for example.

Instead, I'll just leave this video here, of ACTUAL, visual and undeniable proof of mutation, selection and survival of the fittest:

a reply to: cooperton

What if the random change results in a slightly increased survival rate? Combine that with rapid reproduction and wouldn't that be the mix necessary for incremental changes to take place?

Say that the next cycle of mutations lowers the survival rate of those with the mutation and they die off unlike the ones that didn't mutate or mutated in a positive way. Wouldn't that continue the cycle and over many, MANY generations result in the myriad of variations in species that we find today?

I would say tardigrades are the best contender for defeating Darwin and evolution, but I'm not an expert on them by any means.

a reply to: cooperton

Many arguments for evolution are logically attractive. That's about it for most of them. They tend to explain development of subspecies better than the evolution of an entirely new species. As far as I'm aware, this has never been proved in nature.

What I consider the best evidence for evolution is the way the field of genetics has developed. It gives a convincing mechanism - mutations, which is actually different from the survival of the fittest theory. This is key to understand changes in the fossil record after extinction events.

So is evolution scientifically possible? No, not in the classic form. The way it is used today to explain the origin of species must also be supported by genetics theory.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck


only not enough time has passed on earth for us to have started out as a single cell and evolved to this. If you do the math it is impossible for all of this to have evolved from a single cell. I am not saying evolution does not happen , but , what I am saying is not on a macro scale as evolutionists claim. Also add to that there is zero evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into another, which would have had to happen many many times over to see the diversity we have on this planet.

consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 10(60). The number 10(60), if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 4.5 billion years of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10(14) square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10(18) seconds, there can, therefore, be 10(18)/102, or 10(16), trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10(14) (10(9)) (10(16)), or 10(39) attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10(60), it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10(39) attempts might be successful is only one out of 10(60)/10(39), or 10(21).

a reply to: Kharron

What a hauntingly beautiful yet ultimatley depressing video

Another reason to live for today and be thankful, cos one day we humans wont be as abundant

a reply to: Gothmog

But look at all life. Not every thing is human like. And not everything did follow our 'perfect' process. Yet they are no less as magnificent current results of their own individual evolutionary process.

Thylacines were dog like, yet not canine. Evolved their own version of an evolutionarily thing best suited to their environment.

Again, you're seeing things from a single viewpoint.

Very well put together OP, so far i haven't seen one response to the problems in evolution you put forward in detail.

What the evolution proponents do not understand is that multiple process which are dependant on multiple processes need to be in place simultaneously in order to function.

The idea that the complexity involved in the co-dependant processes of a single cell to function came about simultaneously via an evolutionary mechanism is a mathematical impossibility. If you consider these problems on the scale of an organ or an organism the mathematical impossibilty becomes exponentially impossible!

Evolutionists need to take a hard look at what they are actually propagating, the complexities invloved for it to work are simplified, ignored entirely or painted with the 'natural selection guided it' brush which is frankly ignorant at best and downright deceptive at worst.

Once ensconced firmly in Darwin's camp, my own views of evolution have evolved (heh) ... and now I am sleeping by the latrines.

originally posted by: Phage

Indeed. And, as one who understands probabilities, you understand that once something happens the odds against it happening are irrelevant.

So in other words - 'it happened, therefore evolution did it'. The secular replacement for 'God did it'.

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: cooperton

Your entire premise is that you want people to believe that each organ is an entire organism and not a part of the whole, correct? And therefore, each organ could not have evolved because it's different from other organs and unrelated.
Except it's all part of a whole organism and each change affects other organs. Each organ is connected and affected by others through various other systems, which you left out of the OP --nervous system, cardiovascular and so on.

My premise was based on Darwin's quote that if any aspects of our biology were discovered to be dependent on other parts of the body, then his theory would totally collapse. I then went on to describe the immense interdependence of the various parts of the eye. that all aspects of biological creatures are dependent on each other to allow the whole to function. Due to this, a piece-by-piece addition of functions would not be capable of upgrading the whole, just as Darwin said.

I could list many, many examples of how organs are connected and evolve as a whole

If you could demonstrate that a single gene mutation could culminate in a synchronized phenotypic upgrade of an organism you would have a nobel prize. The greatest extent a genetic mutation can make is to alter a protein's structure... which then begs the question: if a gene mutation occurs and creates a newly behaving protein, then the old functioning protein must no longer be coded for, so how does the organism accommodate this loss?

Instead, I'll just leave this video here, of ACTUAL, visual and undeniable proof of mutation, selection and survival of the fittest:

There is no novel gene. There had to have been a number of bacteria that already had that antibiotic resistance, otherwise they would have all been exterminated with the initial exposure to the antibiotic. The resistant to the antibiotic was already present in the population. If you stop administering the antibiotic to the population, and let them forego multiple generations, the gene pool would likely return to baseline genetic ratios for that particular antibiotic resistance.

originally posted by: Noinden
...there are multiple studies showing that the eye did indeed evolve.

You rely on tired old arguments which have been shown to be false.

There are no studies that show that the eye evolved. There is speculation on how it could have happened, but there is no empirical observable evidence demonstrating the random mutative piece-by-piece formation of our eyes. You citing an irrelevant article to 'Scientific American' demonstrates the lack of evidence.

originally posted by: wtfatta
a reply to: cooperton
Wouldn't that continue the cycle and over many, MANY generations result in the myriad of variations in species that we find today?

The theory of evolution relies on vast amounts of time for its extremely-low-probability-events (miracles) to happen. I wrote an article on the evidence that dinosaurs are younger than we thought: Here. The entire scientific narrative that is pushed on us from an early age is not based in empirical evidence, but instead is fogged by semantic ambiguity and speculation. This is something that I encourage everyone to look into on their own from an unbiased perspective. I was once a zealot for the theory of evolution, but it eventually could no longer fit scientific observations and my own observations of the world.

I realize it is a worthwhile opinion to share with others because the theory of evolution is a philosophical dead end that renders people lethargic in the search for the genuine origins of who and what we are.

Very interesting thread. I have ever bought the evolution theory personally. Simple because, why only us?

When other species land and sea have existed millions of years before our supposed ancestors? Makes no sense.

WE are an anomaly on Earth. We are also an anomaly in our own solar system as far as has been released publicly. Anomalies dont just happen.

Did anyone else read about the 10GB data drop an anon posted on the chans the other night? This site is dead so it wasnt mentioned here but elsewhere, anyways the drop detailed once again how apparently our elites are in contact with extraterrestrials and there is an entire galactic federation of various races. Yada yada. Weve heard it all before.

I am not saying this drop was proof of anything or that i believe it. But quite frankly, what is more likely?

That there are other intelligent, sentient, lifeforms out there in the infinite universe besides us and they may even be in contact and aligned various ways, or that it is just us? That evolution to our level of sentience is true but it only applied to mankind on this single planet in this single system.

I mean, c'mon. We are evidence of something happening, something that likely would replicate to a degree in nature or otherwise and happen elsewhere.

That seems way way more probable to me to be honest, plus it is amazing to think about.

And how many supposed leakers have to spill basically the same information, before we start pondering it realistically?

Personally? I believe we are not of this Earth. Our origins are elsewhere imho.

a reply to: cooperton

There is no novel gene. There had to have been a number of bacteria that already had that antibiotic resistance, otherwise they would have all been exterminated with the initial exposure to the antibiotic. The resistant to the antibiotic was already present in the population. If you stop administering the antibiotic to the population, and let them forego multiple generations, the gene pool would likely return to baseline genetic ratios for that particular antibiotic resistance.

So you are suggesting that organisms have resistances to any and all things that kill them built in?

It seems like you didn't actually watch what is happening in the video...

Multipule generations of bacteria spread and move across the test area...by the time they actually hit the antibiotic theres billions of them, with hundreds... perhaps even thousands or more of generations of this bacteria... and they all die when they hit the antibiotic... thats why theres a distinct line between the samples

Your explanations are seriously lacking... though very imaginative

originally posted by: JameSimon
a reply to: cooperton

So you say that evolution is impossible based on your lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. Awesome, glad we clarified that.

So, what are thoughts about the evolutionary processes?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

So you are suggesting that organisms have resistances to any and all things that kill them built in? Multipule generations of bacteria spread and move across the test area...by the time they actually hit the antibiotic theres billions of them, with hundreds... perhaps even thousands or more of generations of this bacteria... and they all die when they hit the antibiotic... thats why theres a distinct line between the samples

This is an example of population adaptation and specifically an induced bottleneck effect. To prove otherwise they would have to demonstrate that a novel gene was creating a novel protein, and not an allele variation already present in the population. Remove the antibiotic from the final population and they will eventually revert back to normal allele ratios.

This is why, despite all the scare regarding a superbug, it never happens, because the bacteria revert back from their extremes once the stressor is removed. if evolution actually were occurring, then all the megafarms that are administering perpetual doses of antibiotics to livestock would be a breeding ground for world-ending superbugs.

Also important to note, trimethoprim, the antibiotic used in the study, is a pretty safe, weak antibiotic that only inhibits folate metabolism in bacteria. It will still kill most bacteria, but certainly not all of them. Bottlenecking is a theorized aspect of evolution, but there are no new genes created in this process. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are present in all populations of all organisms, they allow populations to adapt to various stresses.

Honestly address how random mutations could have possibly created this:


Biochemistry is easy to pretend as evolution, but upgrading aspects of functional neuroanatomy through random chance would be similar to a monkey being able to upgrade a Boeing Jet